Michael Lee

I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying.

I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying.

I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying.

I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying.

Verstehst du mich?

It's gonna be at least a pile.

That one's scary.

Oh Mann.

Toy Boat.

A child with asthma, a child with a broken limb, or a child with cancer that's terminal, right? What's going to get you even more attention than that when the child dies? I mean, how much of an outpouring of sympathy, empathy and everything else are you going to get? Just an outpouring of love and support from people, right?

And I think one of the scary things about this is one of the hallmark features, too, from a pathological perspective is that the children of these mothers typically never, there's never a maternal bonding process that takes place between these kids and their parents.

So, I mean, it even tracks even harder, I think, in this one, given the fact that this is a child that she adopted from a foreign country, brought her here, And there's a lot of things just surrounding that whole process that really seemed very suspicious to me in and of themselves.

But in addition to everything else that we're seeing, these are not, you know, for this person, for this not to be a criminal behavior, an intentionally afflicted abuse, there would be way too many coincidences, right, of all of these things happening. And I think that's where we really have to, like Mike Weber told me one time, and I laughed

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. And especially because if she's caught a lot of scrutiny over whether this child has this condition or not, and the idea of making room for one or two more that have a legitimate diagnosis that is life-threatening in some way, right? Like, yeah, I mean, it tracks. Why not get rid of this one and get a lot of love and support from that?

And then as our love tank is emptying, we bring those other ones in and we start this process all over again. And it's a pattern of behavior. And it's like, listen, it wasn't even enough. Like, we've got to get two more. We've got to triple the amount that I'm – and we can say all day long, oh, it's because I have a heart for kids, this and that and the other thing.

I've got four of them living in my house. You know what I mean? Anybody that's got kids knows that, look, listen, if they're neurotypical with no – problems, medically, they're still really hard to deal with. It's stressful. We need breaks from them.

There's things that have to happen in order for us to keep our sanity and still maintain a healthy relationship with our kids and with our spouse and so forth and so on. And so when we see people that are inviting these things into their lives, I think we really do have to raise a big question mark there.

She starts making claims like, for instance, she stated at one point, epilepsy doesn't look like this. It looks like this other thing, you know? And, well, she's not a doctor, so you can't make a claim like that, right? But she's purporting herself, basically, like she plays that role on TV. And I'm telling you, epilepsy doesn't look like that, just so you know. It looks like this other thing.

Now, that's... Not as extreme a behavior because people will often think things. You know, they'll have their own perceptions of what things are supposed to be based on what they've heard.

But there's times that she really plays intentionally, like she is giving, she's saying a lot of real medical, heavy kind of literature lingo that she's throwing in the conversation to seem very, very knowledgeable, very, very. And that in and of itself presented itself in her statement commonly in a specific pattern. That pattern is what we like to call excessive non-relevant details.

So the investigators ask her a question. There's a specific answer they're looking for. Like, for instance, the question may be, so when did she get the AHC diagnosis, for example? And she doesn't answer that question.

she could say, oh, well, she got it in September of whatever year at this place, right? That's a direct answer. That's what we would expect a truthful person to do.

Instead, she takes us on this long journey where she has to predicate everything that she's about to say by taking us through this whole medical journey, and now she's throwing out medical lingo, and she's really kind of encapsulating this very, very muddy, confusing medical picture, in the way that she feels like it to us, like she answered that question. There was no answer in that.

The problem is, with these types of interviews, is that law enforcement are often doing these cold, like they're being brought into them with very little information or not all of the information. especially in homicide cases, they're, you know, typically they get called to a dead body, right? And they have to go in and, hey, did you do it? What happened here?

They're asking these kinds of questions. They don't really know the facts. And the idea there is to kind of like nail down a story. And, you know, as we go through the facts and the forensics on a homicide scene, we may be able to ascertain, you know, how much of what they said aligns with the evidence, right? And that becomes the discrepancy there is the thing that's relevant.

But I think one of the big red flags that we have to have is, you know, if we have a child and let's just say, apart from mother, I offer her a little hostess cupcake and you want this? And she's like, yeah, I want it. And she eats it. We immediately have a problem. That's a discrepancy between the two.

If I can see her, if I can observe her and I see that there's no indications of this, even if we do some legitimate test for it and it doesn't align with the thing that mom's saying. I mean, mom, during her interview with the police officers, she literally told them that

that she was telling the people at Seattle Children's, I feel like you want me to force this child to have a certain reaction, a certain symptom that presents in front of you, even if it takes harming my child to do so, just so that I can prove to you That what I'm saying is true.

I mean, that was one of the most loaded statements of that entire interview, just chock full with great indicators that we have to look in in behavior and like psycholinguistics, right? But she's giving these things to us. She's telling us.

My name is Michael Lee. I'm a major crimes detective in south, southeast Texas. I started the National Crimes Against Children's Investigators Association along with very successful child abuse prosecutors and investigators. And my job is to be an objective fact finder, to recognize patterns, to go get evidence, to compile all that in a format in an organized fashion.

Yeah, when we talk about the elevation from, you know, like the NG tube to the G tube to the GJ tube to the TPN machine, right, and that whole track, that is a very context-specific type of behavior that we do see, right, in a pattern.

What we're really looking for is inconsistencies with what should be or inconsistencies between behavior A and behavior B, statement A, statement B. That's really the job of the investigators whenever they're working through this case. The G-tube cases are the ones that track hardest towards death.

They're the ones that in the medical literature, you know, that when they talk about just how deadly this type of abuse is, the fact that it is arguably the most deadly of all types of abuse regarding children, that those are the cases that lead to it.

The fact that she is telling the child things, that she is presenting these things from multiple angles is very indicative of this psychological drive towards what we believe to be likely a child that will die or will be very close to death.

It is not uncommon for these offenders to induce things, especially under times of high stress, and especially if they're being questioned about it, especially if the child's making improvements. If there's a separation and then they go back with the mother, all of a sudden we got to go even harder, you know, on whatever medical emergency is fixing to arise now.

Right. So it's like a counteraction. So I think that all of the signs and symptoms are here for that. It's obviously a concern that she's pushing this child towards death. what are you going to get more attention for, right?

Since we know that this is primarily fueled by the seeking of attention and validation and support, and that's how they feel love and so forth and so on whenever they achieve those things. So they're filling a deficit, right? But whenever they engage in this behavior, what's going to get you more attention?

This just in tonight, too, another CEO has quit the president's job council.